Should all salaries be made public? Perhaps Tax returns be public?

[scifisam]

True, but it's not just donkeys and cats is it?

Core public services funded by tax are being replaced by "third sector" provision funded by charity. In education this is accelerating rapidly for example. Allowing the more privileged sections of society to pick and choose what essential provisions they want to be funded and which they don't is not a good thing.

No, like I said, I agree that some charities should not be charities but funded by the govt. Hospices, for example, should be entirely government funded. But I don't think the solution is to make it harder for all charities to exist no matter their type.

It's not as if people actually make money on charitable giving - yeah, it counts against tax, but you've still got to actually give the money away to begin with.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

It's not as if people actually make money on charitable giving - yeah, it counts against tax, but you've still got to actually give the money away to begin with.

I give money from my company which would otherwise be given to the government in corporation tax, so it's not really my money I'm giving away, but the state's. Why should I be the one to decide where that money goes?

 

[scifisam]

I give money from my company which would otherwise be given to the government in corporation tax, so it's not really my money I'm giving away, but the state's. Why should I be the one to decide where that money goes?

Don't you do the same when you buy office equipment, pay staff, pay overheads etc, and claim it against tax? Why should you be the one to decide where that money goes?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Don't you do the same when you buy office equipment, pay staff, pay overheads etc, and claim it against tax? Why should you be the one to decide where that money goes?

I do that, but these are things that are needed to run the business. 100 sleeping bags for refugees doesn't help my business in any way at all...

 

[scifisam]

I do that, but these are things that are needed to run the business. 100 sleeping bags for refugees doesn't help my business in any way at all...

Then don't claim it against tax. You're not obliged to.

 

[chilango]

No, like I said, I agree that some charities should not be charities but funded by the govt. Hospices, for example, should be entirely government funded. But I don't think the solution is to make it harder for all charities to exist no matter their type.

It's not as if people actually make money on charitable giving - yeah, it counts against tax, but you've still got to actually give the money away to begin with.

The solution* is to make it less necessary for charities to exist.

Part of that is to increase funding for services via increasing tax revenues.

If after they've paid their dues people/companies want to give to charities, then fine.

Bonus = they then wouldn't have to have it as part of the public record of income and tax paid.

It shouldn't impact upon their tax responsibilities though.

*not that there's a nice, neat solution, nor that I have it, but for the purposes of discussion!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Then don't claim it against tax. You're not obliged to.

I am if it goes out of my company. I could choose to pay the money to myself first, paying tax, employee and employer NI on it, then give what is left to the refugees, or give it directly from the company. The latter means a shed-load more cash goes where I want it to go.

 

[scifisam]

I am if it goes out of my company. I could choose to pay the money to myself first, paying tax, employee and employer NI on it, then give what is left to the refugees, or give it directly from the company. The latter means a shed-load more cash goes where I want it to go.

But I thought you were against individuals having the right to choose where their money went instead of paying it in tax. Now you're choosing to give the charity money instead of paying tax.

The solution* is to make it less necessary for charities to exist.

Part of that is to increase funding for services via increasing tax revenues.

If after they've paid their dues people/companies want to give to charities, then fine.

Bonus = they then wouldn't have to have it as part of the public record of income and tax paid.

It shouldn't impact upon their tax responsibilities though.

*not that there's a nice, neat solution, nor that I have it, but for the purposes of discussion!

Got no argument with making it less necessary for charities to exist, but I wouldn't apply that to all charities. I mean as much as I love cats I don't think cats' homes should be funded from general taxation, and if giving money away meant that you didn't get to keep the money yourself but you were still taxed on it then charitable donations would go way down.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

But I thought you were against individuals having the right to choose where their money went instead of paying it in tax. Now you're choosing to give the charity money instead of paying tax.

I'm against having a system that encourages this, lauds those that do it in fact. But as the system is there I am happy to abuse it.

 

[chilango]

But I thought you were against individuals having the right to choose where their money went instead of paying it in tax. Now you're choosing to give the charity money instead of paying tax.



Got no argument with making it less necessary for charities to exist, but I wouldn't apply that to all charities. I mean as much as I love cats I don't think cats' homes should be funded from general taxation, and if giving money away meant that you didn't get to keep the money yourself but you were still taxed on it then charitable donations would go way down.

If (and, yeah, it's a big if) we create a society where public services are comprehensive and well-funded with our needs (healthcare, education, housing etc etc) being met, then what is left for charity to cover?

The discretionary. The stuff we don't need, but it'd be "nice" to have?

I dunno...Cat's Homes? Donkey Sanctuary? Lifeboats? Mountain Rescue? But surely stuff like treating cancer and educating kids with special needs and ensuring people have s roof over their and food to eat should not be reliant upper n charitable donation, but are fundamental to a functioning state and economy that meets people's needs?

The stuff that people donate to because it's of personal interest to them? People would still donate to this kinda stuff. Even if they aren't getting a tax break from it.Wouldn't they? Perhaps more so, because these charities aren't competing with those that currently raise money for healthcare, education. Housing etc?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If (and, yeah, it's a big if) we create a society where public services are comprehensive and well-funded with our needs (healthcare, education, housing etc etc) being met, then what is left for charity to cover?

The discretionary. The stuff we don't need, but it'd be "nice" to have?

I dunno...Cat's Homes? Donkey Sanctuary? Lifeboats? Mountain Rescue? But surely stuff like treating cancer and educating kids with special needs and ensuring people have s roof over their and food to eat should not be reliant upper n charitable donation, but are fundamental to a functioning state and economy that meets people's needs?

The stuff that people donate to because it's of personal interest to them? People would still donate to this kinda stuff. Even if they aren't getting a tax break from it.Wouldn't they? Perhaps more so, because these charities aren't competing with those that currently raise money for healthcare, education. Housing etc?

There are other things, such as NGOs like Amnesty, which need to remain independent of govt funding in order to do their work. Even in an ideal society, there'd be a need for non-governmental agencies in order to keep an eye on govts.

 

[scifisam]

If (and, yeah, it's a big if) we create a society where public services are comprehensive and well-funded with our needs (healthcare, education, housing etc etc) being met, then what is left for charity to cover?

The discretionary. The stuff we don't need, but it'd be "nice" to have?

I dunno...Cat's Homes? Donkey Sanctuary? Lifeboats? Mountain Rescue? But surely stuff like treating cancer and educating kids with special needs and ensuring people have s roof over their and food to eat should not be reliant upper n charitable donation, but are fundamental to a functioning state and economy that meets people's needs?

The stuff that people donate to because it's of personal interest to them? People would still donate to this kinda stuff. Even if they aren't getting a tax break from it.Wouldn't they? Perhaps more so, because these charities aren't competing with those that currently raise money for healthcare, education. Housing etc?

Not sure why you keep trying to persuade me that some charities shouldn't need to be charities - that's my point of view too.

Charitable giving would definitely go down if it weren't tax deductable. I mean, even if people weren't actually discouraged from making donations they'd have less to give due to paying tax on the money they're donating. It'd be pretty much impossible for donations not to go down.

 

[chilango]

Not sure why you keep trying to persuade me that some charities shouldn't need to be charities - that's my point of view too.

Charitable giving would definitely go down if it weren't tax deductable. I mean, even if people weren't actually discouraged from making donations they'd have less to give due to paying tax on the money they're donating. It'd be pretty much impossible for donations not to go down.

Sorry, not trying to persuade you. But it's where we're at and is central to my point.

It'd be ok for charity giving to go down though, wouldn't it? There'd be less need, and fewer charities!

 

[Idaho]

The solution* is to make it less necessary for charities to exist.

Part of that is to increase funding for services via increasing tax revenues.

If after they've paid their dues people/companies want to give to charities, then fine.

Bonus = they then wouldn't have to have it as part of the public record of income and tax paid.

It shouldn't impact upon their tax responsibilities though.

*not that there's a nice, neat solution, nor that I have it, but for the purposes of discussion!

You've identified it yourself, but it's worth labouring. We don't have the luxury of deciding on what problems we have. And proposing to solve a big problem by simply solving a collosal one - is not a viable argument.

 

[chilango]

There are other things, such as NGOs like Amnesty, which need to remain independent of govt funding in order to do their work. Even in an ideal society, there'd be a need for non-governmental agencies in order to keep an eye on govts.

Stick 'em on the list with Cats' Homes and Mountain Rescue then

 

[chilango]

You've identified it yourself, but it's worth labouring. We don't have the luxury of deciding on what problems we have. And proposing to solve a big problem by simply solving a collosal one - is not a viable argument.

Eh?

 

[scifisam]

Sorry, not trying to persuade you. But it's where we're at and is central to my point.

It'd be ok for charity giving to go down though, wouldn't it? There'd be less need, and fewer charities!

Are you somehow assuming that all those charities are going to be funded by tax without taxes going up?

 

[chilango]

Are you somehow assuming that all those charities are going to be funded by tax without taxes going up?

No.

I want taxes to go up.

 

[scifisam]

No.

I want taxes to go up.

Then people definitely wouldn't give as much to the remaining charities. I mean those charities getting less money, btw, not overall donations going down, which obviously would happen if loads of charities no longer existed. Cats' homes etc would have lower funding. You might be OK with that but you can't deny it would happen.

 

[chilango]

Then people definitely wouldn't give as much to the remaining charities. I mean those charities getting less money, btw, not overall donations going down, which obviously would happen if loads of charities no longer existed. Cats' homes etc would have lower funding. You might be OK with that but you can't deny it would happen.

If you're posing a binary choice between raising taxes* to pay for properly funded public services versus people donating more to charity, then I'll choose the former. Every time.

I don't believe tats the choice ve though.

*to clarify Im talking about higher rate income tax and corporation tax primarily.

 

[scifisam]

If you're posing a binary choice between raising taxes* to pay for properly funded public services versus people donating more to charity, then I'll choose the former. Every time.

I don't believe tats the choice ve though.

*to clarify Im talking about higher rate income tax and corporation tax primarily.

No, it's not the choice and I never proposed it. We were talking about charitable donations being tax deductible, not about raising taxes. You could raise taxes but still have donations be deductible.

 

[chilango]

No, it's not the choice and I never proposed it. We were talking about charitable donations being tax deductible, not about raising taxes. You could raise taxes but still have donations be deductible.

I don't want charities to be a "get out" to avoid paying tax. What's the point in raising tax if you leave the door open to avoid paying it?

 

[scifisam]

I don't want charities to be a "get out" to avoid paying tax. What's the point in raising tax if you leave the door open to avoid paying it?

Do you think that's why some people give to charity then? But they don't make money out of it, so it'd be a bit stupid. If they're basic rate tax payers they essentially get 20% "back" through taxes but they're still out the other 80%.

 

[kabbes]

Do you think that's why people give to charity then? But they don't make money out of it, so it'd be a bit stupid. If they're basic rate tax payers they essentially get 20% "back" through taxes but they're still out the other 80%.

Most people gift-aid that 20% they would have got back anyway.

 

[jusali]

I'm probably underpaid and know I earn below the median income. But I wouldn't want this stuff out there as it's just another complete rats nest of potential grief we just don't need. We all know that pay is unfair and some don't/do deserve what they're paid but hey that's Capitalism. That's the real glass ceiling we all need to break through to create something more deserving for/of us all???